Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd (trading as Mylan) and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Sumption,Lord Reed,Lord Briggs,Lord Hodge,Lord Mance |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKSC 56 |
| Date | 14 November 2018 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
[2018] UKSC 56
Lord Mance
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Lord Hodge
Lord Briggs
Appellant
Lord Pannick QC
Thomas Mitcheson QC
Miles Copeland
Tim Austen
(Instructed by Allen & Overy)
1 st Respondent (Generics (UK) Ltd t/a Mylan)
Adrian Speck QC
Pushpinder Saini QC
Kathryn Pickard
(Instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP)
2 nd Respondent (Actavis Group PTC EHF)
Adrian Speck QC
Pushpinder Saini QC
Kathryn Pickard
(Instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP)
Interveners
| (1) SS Health | Michael Silverleaf QC Nicholas Saunders | |
| (2) EFPIA | Christopher Stothers Laura Whiting Paul Abbott | Written submissions only |
| (3) ABPI | Christopher Stothers Laura Whiting Paul Abbott | Written submissions only |
| (4) CIPA | In-house | Written submissions only |
| (5) BIA | In-house | Written submissions only |
| (6) Medicines for Europe | Catherine Drew, ( Pinsent Mason LLP) | Written submissions only |
| (7) British Generic Manufacturers Association | Christopher Sharp, ( Pinsent Mason LLP) | Written submissions only |
| (8) PSNC | In-house | Written submissions only |
| (9) National Pharmacy Association | ( Charles Russell Speechlys LLP) | Written submissions only |
| (10) Mr Fionan McCaul | In person | Written submissions only |
Heard on 12, 13, 14 and 15 February 2018
( with whom Lord Reed agrees)
These proceedings raise, for the first time in the courts of the United Kingdom, the question how the concepts of sufficiency and infringement are to be applied to a patent relating to a specified medical use of a known pharmaceutical compound. An important objective of modern pharmaceutical research is the discovery of new medical uses for known molecules. This commonly involves expensive research programmes, which will not be rewarded and will therefore not happen unless patent protection is available. Patent protection for second use medical patents is, however, difficult to accommodate within the traditional scheme of patent law. Traditionally, there were two legal obstacles. First, both the product and the process by which it was prepared were known from the original patent and therefore failed the test of novelty. Secondly, its use for a new therapeutic purpose was not itself patentable because article 52(4) of the European Patent Convention (the “EPC”) and section 4(2) of the UK Patents Act 1977 prevented the grant of patents for a method of treatment of the human or animal body.
As is now well known, in 1984 the Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Office issued a statement of practice that it would be prepared to grant patents for second use medical patents in the following form: “the use of compound X in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of indication Y”: [1984] OJ EPO 581. Hence the expression “Swiss-form patents” for patents granted in this form. The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office adopted this approach shortly afterwards in EISAI/Second Medical Indication G 05/83 [1979–85] EPOR B241. It ruled, at para 23, that it was
“legitimate in principle to allow claims directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application, even in a case in which the process of manufacture as such does not differ from known processes using the same active ingredient.”
Swiss-form patents were not product patents, but purpose-limited process patents. They surmounted both obstacles because the invention is identified as neither a product nor a method of treatment but a manufacturing process for a novel purpose.
This development responded to a real problem, namely the difficulty of obtaining patent protection for second uses that may have been truly inventive and involved costly research. But it has given rise to formidable analytical problems as a result of the need to apply to Swiss-form patents a statutory scheme which was not designed to accommodate them. For this reason they were regarded with suspicion as intellectually impure by patent lawyers in the United Kingdom. In John Wyeth and Brother Ltd's Application [1985] RPC 545, they were adopted with express misgivings by the Patents Court in the interests of uniformity among states party to the EPC. But in spite of the misgivings, they have achieved a secure place in United Kingdom patent law, and neither party to this appeal challenges them in principle. Some of the difficulties associated with them were resolved when the EPC was revised in November 2000 to provide for (among other things) the grant of purpose-limited product patents: see article 54(5) of the revised Convention. Corresponding changes were made to the Patents Act 1977 by the Patents Act 2004. Once these changes came into effect, in 2011, Swiss-form patents ceased to be issued by the European Patent Office. EPC 2000 patents give rise to difficulties of their own, some of which are very similar. But this appeal is not concerned with them.
Warner-Lambert is a company in the Pfizer Group. It is the proprietor of European Patent No 0641330 for Isobutylgaba for the treatment of seizure disorders, notably epilepsy. Pregabalin is a derivative of Isobutylgaba, which is also referred to by its chemical name (S)-3-(aminomethyl)-5-methylhexanoic acid. It is marketed by Warner-Lambert under the brand name “Lyrica”. Patent No 0641330 expired in the United Kingdom on 17 May 2013.
The present appeal concerns a second European Patent, EP(UK) No 0934061, entitled “Isobutylgaba and its derivatives for the treatment of pain”, with a priority date of 24 July 1996 (“the Patent”). The claims of the Patent are all purpose-limited. Those which are principally relevant are Claims 1, 2 and 3, which are in the following terms:
“1. Use of (S)-3-(aminomethyl)-5-methylhexanoic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof for the preparation of a pharmaceutical composition for treating pain.
2. Use according to Claim 1 wherein the pain is inflammatory pain.
3. Use according to Claim 1 wherein the pain is neuropathic pain.”
It is common ground that the skilled person to whom the Patent is deemed to be addressed is a team consisting of a neuroscientist and a clinician specialising in the treatment of pain. To explain what the skilled team would understand by the terms used in the claims, it is necessary to say something about what was known at the priority date about the physiology of pain.
The second edition of Classification of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain Terms, published in 1994 by the International Association for the Study of Pain, defined “pain” very broadly. It is “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage.” At the priority date, pain was classified into a number of different types. The distinctions between them were neither absolute nor consistently understood. But it was generally recognised that pain fell into two broad categories: nociceptive and neuropathic pain.
Nociceptive pain is produced by noxious external stimuli such as heat, extreme cold, intense mechanical pressure or chemicals. These stimuli stimulate fibres known as nociceptors, which transmit impulses via the spinal cord to the brain, where they are perceived as pain. Nociceptive pain has a bio-protective function. It alerts the brain to the presence of noxious stimuli so that appropriate avoidance measures can be taken. This type of pain resolves with treatment of the underlying cause.
Inflammatory pain is a type of nociceptive pain. The body's response to an injury involves the release of chemical mediators which increase the sensitivity of nociceptors causing pain both at the site of the injury or in the surrounding area. Like other nociceptive pain, inflammatory pain resolves with the treatment of the underlying cause. In 1996, well known and efficacious treatments were available for treating inflammatory pain. They included analgesics (eg paracetamol), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (eg aspirin, ibuprofen) and opioids of various strengths.
Neuropathic pain, unlike nociceptive/inflammatory pain, is pathological. It has no bio-protective function. It is caused by damage to the nervous system itself. Neuropathic pain was defined in the second edition of the IASP's Classification of Chronic Pain as “pain initiated or caused by a primary lesion or dysfunction of the nervous system.” The nervous system comprises the central nervous system, ie the brain and spinal cord, and the peripheral nervous system, ie the nerves outside those structures. Critical to the issues in these proceedings is the distinction between peripheral neuropathic pain, which arises from damage or dysfunction of the peripheral nervous system; and central neuropathic pain, which is rarer and arises from damage or dysfunction of the central nervous system, for example as a result of a stroke, multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury. The symptoms of neuropathic pain (of either kind) are more severe than those of nociceptive/inflammatory pain. They include perceptions of burning, shooting pain and electric shock pain. Moreover, unlike nociceptive/inflammatory pain, neuropathic pain is persistent, sometimes for years or for life. It was in 1996, and still is, notoriously difficult to treat neuropathic pain. In particular, treatments which were efficacious against nociceptive/inflammatory pain, such as non-steroidal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L'Oreal (U.K.) Ltd v Liqwd Inc.
...61 Before us counsel for Olaplex placed some reliance upon the line of cases culminating in Generics (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Co LLC [2018] UKSC 56, [2019] Bus LR 360 in which courts have rejected applications made by patentees to amend the claims of patents after trial on the ground of ......
-
Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC
...the infringement issues. On 14 November 2018 the Supreme Court handed down judgment dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross-appeal [2018] UKSC 56, [2019] Bus LR 360 (“ Warner-Lambert SC”). In brief summary, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that claims 1 ......
-
Sandoz Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
...supposing that the claimed invention will indeed have the promised technical effect.” 32 In Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd [2018] UKSC 56, [2019] Bus LR 360 the patent contained second medical use claims in Swiss form of a known pharmaceutical, pregabalin. Claim 1 claimed the u......
-
Regen Lab SA v Estar Medical Ltd
...side to successive cases when you could readily have put them all in one go.” 272 The Supreme Court in its judgment in Warner-Lambert [2018] UKSC 56 unanimously approved the reasoning of Nikken Kosakusho Works v Pioneer Trading Co [2005] EWCA Civ 906; [2006] FSR 4 and of Nokia in relatio......
-
Actavis v Eli Lilly: The Impact On Patent Infringement Law In The UK Two Years On
...v Tabur Marine [1985] RPC 59; Pozzoli v BDMO [2007] EWCA Civ 558 6 Synthon v SKB [2006] RPC 10 at [22] 7 Warner-Lambert v Generics [2018] UKSC 56 (14 November 2018) Lords Sumption, Reed, Briggs, Hodge and Mance; Actavis v ICOS [2019] UKSC 15 (27 March 2019) Lady Hale and Lords Kerr, Sumptio......
-
UK Supreme Court Confirms Warner-Lambert Patent Claims Insufficient
...in the Supreme Court's library (!) The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Warner-Lambert v Generics & Anr [2018] UKSC 56. It took the form of separate judgments from four Law Lords, who agreed that key claims of Warner-Lambert's patent were invalid and could n......
-
Enablement and Plausibility ' is a guess good enough?
...& Co [2011] UKSC 51; [2012] RPC 6 (Eli Lilly). However, recent developments in UK jurisprudence (see Warner-Lambert v Generics & Anr [2018] UKSC 56) have raised the threshold for the plausibility test, and it appears that the Australian Patent Office ("APO") is following suit. In a more rec......
-
News from Abroad -- Swiss-type Patent Claims in Australia
...Nicholas was guided by their Lordships' observations in the UK Supreme Court decision Warner Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd [2018] UKSC 56 ('Warner Lambert') which had issued the previous year. In particular, His Honour accepted that Swiss-style claims should be construed as use-li......